Archive

Film, music, books & British stuff

In my previous post, I wrote about my excitement surrounding the release of David Fincher’s film interpretation of the late Stieg Larsson’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, namely, the ability of the single most unapproachable character’s approachability. So I shall begin this post with a miniature review of the film which I saw opening day to no one’s surprise. Though I did manage to drag along four of my friends, none of which had read the book or knew anything about the plot. Yes, we – the faithful five – contributed to the unfortunate gross of the film.

Rooney Mara was impeccable. I have yet to see the Swedish version (I have been too busy to be Netflix-lazy!), but it is waiting for me in the “Instant Queue” and I am quite looking forward to it. With that being said, I cannot fairly compare Mara’s performance to Noomi Rapace’s. I can only imagine filmmakers everywhere kicking themselves for failing to capitalize on what David Fincher saw in her. Having already seen two other films starring Mara (Youth in Revolt and The Social Network), I’m convinced she can do anything and do it well.

I was captivated and taken in by her eyes, which conveyed everything her actions didn’t, much like Lisbeth Salander in the books. Physically – with all her real piercings and synthetic tattoos, amazing hairstyle, and Goth-androgynous clothing – she is Lisbeth, as well as emotionally. Daniel Craig, who I’ve only ever had the pleasure of seeing as James Bond, was wonderful. Who knew there were acting chops behind all those fancy fighting moves? And, much to my and my cohorts’ pleasure, had clothes on as often as he had them off. The chemistry between Mara and Craig was electric and sensationally translated to screen.

Besides the excellent casting and screenplay, David Fincher really did a satisfying job from book to film. As an avid fan of the Millennium Trilogy, I am extremely pleased. I would highly recommend it to any one. There are a few minutes that are tough to digest, but remember, revenge is sweet and so gratifying to the audience. Give the box office a boost, and please do yourself an intellectual favor and skip out on the ridiculous Tom Cruise flick. Brad Bird directed or not, it’s child’s play and not worth the money.

Next, on to my holiday reading list. I’m sharing in hopes of receiving suggestions. I’m trying to read as much as I possibly can before January 15, after which time I will be forced to finish my final semester of college and will put my reading on hold until June. The following are the books I have finished, read, and/or am reading in December.

The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest by Stieg Larsson

The Help by Kathryn Stockett – I’m excited to see the movie (is it really worth the nominations it will receive?)

1984 by George Orwell

The Hunger Games by Suzanne Collins (I am starting this tomorrow)

The transition from the conclusion of the Millennium Trilogy to the Southern tale of The Help was difficult and probably affected my reception of it, which was lukewarm. 1984 has picked up – until page 80 it was largely routine, but now that there’s a girl in the picture it’s a whole new world, do what you will with the pun. I’m very excited to start The Hunger Games, except for my concern that it will seem stupid to me. Something I learned at a very young age is teen fiction is a sticky category (it is NOT a genre); you never know what you will get. For every good book sucked into that swamp-like category, there are one hundred books that are complete wastes of time and brain cells (Twilight, anyone?). But the movie trailer intrigued me, I promised my Fuse girls I would read it, and everyone is talking about it (though I typically differ in literary taste from “everyone”). Nevertheless, I will read it. If I like it, there will undoubtedly be a post.

Finally, I’d like to address something very near to me at this moment in my life: the law school admissions process. Every aspect of this process causes my skin to break out and my body to tense up with worry. I have tried everything to cure these symptoms: prayer, nonchalance, openness, talking it out, more prayer, pretending I am the only person who does not have to go through this process (surely someone will offer me a spot without me having to apply). Some of the remedies work, but only temporarily. My biggest issue that is under my control – the personal statement – is the hardest element of the application to find any concrete information on. How long can it be? What should I talk about? Why is my life so boring? What are my competition writing about? Why are these statements necessary? (My guess: to appear to keep discriminatory practices at bay.) It is for this reason that I am going to post my personal statement (one of them), LSAT score, GPA, schools I applied to and schools to which I was granted admittance as soon as the information becomes available to me. In my research of personal statements, I found what was most helpful was a random discussion board filled with posts like the one I described above.

With this, I bid you adieu. The New Year is almost upon us!

P.S. The post title is a reference to the John Lennon song, not the recent political movements.

Disclaimer: This is the first post I have not done for my English 475 class. I feel the need to point this out since my professor will be reading these posts. To him, please do not include this one in my grade! Although you are welcome to read it if you desire.

Alas, holiday movie season is finally here. HMS is easily my favorite movie season. Summer blockbusters and September Stoners just cannot compete. HMS is the perfect mix of Oscar contenders and big-budget action pics. It makes us mainstream folk feel mature and sometimes artsy.

Though Sherlock Holmes and New Years Eve are films I will eventually watch (and Mission Impossible 5 doesn’t interest me in the slightest – who needs five films for a franchise? Especially one not based on a book series), the movie I simply cannot wait for is David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo.

 

I picked up the book by Stieg Larrson this summer and quickly devoured it… and the sequel (The Girl Who Played With Fire)… and the conclusion (The Girl Who Kicked the Hornet’s Nest). All in all, approximately 1800+ pages. I’m an English major and I don’t make time for recreational reading. I cannot remember the last time I read that many pages just because I could. It was well worth the time investment.

 

The trailers for the movie look promising – an impeccable cast and revered director and writer. I won’t pretend I’m a huge “Fincher Fan” – I’ve only seen The Social Network and Fight Club, but from those two films I’ve concluded the man knows how to translate text to screen. I’m a little bit skeptical because he has admitted to changing the ending and anticipating negative feedback from the trilogy’s fanbase, but I have faith that he won’t compromise the late Larrson’s work and legacy.

 

For some reason I really connected to the series. I can’t relate to the pseudo-heroine Lisbeth Salander (pictured below) – and I thank the Lord for that – but there is something about her that is relatable.

(Noomi Rapace as Lisbeth)

(Rooney Mara as Lisbeth)
Larrson and his widowed girlfriend refer to Lisbeth as a type of Pippi Longstocking, which makes me question my familiarity with Longstocking’s tale. But what is so relatable about a fictional character who strives to be unrelatable? I believe it is her vulnerability. Lisbeth is tough in many ways, but also vulnerable. She may not be approachable, but she isn’t judgmental either. If you are one of the rare (albeit fictional) people who establishes a relationship with her she is absolutely loyal to the end.
Mikael Blomkvist (the main man of the series) describes her best when he says she plays by her own rules of justice. She trusts no one, especially the government, and takes it upon herself to distribute it as she sees fit. One of my favorite quotes from the series goes like this: “She was the most judgmental person he had ever met. But she never once raised an eyebrow at people’s weaknesses.” Lisbeth is scarred, but she still has feelings even though they’re often hidden or camouflaged.
I wish everyone would read the books – she really is worth it and the storylines are incredibly addicting, but I know they don’t appeal to everyone. My mother, for example, can’t get past page 50. For people like her, I promise: the first 100 pages are dry, but the next 1700 (appx.) are very intellectually rewarding. A friend of mine (who will probably read this) says Lisbeth is too Gothic for her, which couldn’t be further from the truth, but I won’t hold it against her (at least she’s a Harry Potter book and movie fan).
While I am sad for Larrson’s untimely death for selfish and sympathetic reasons, his legacy will go on… And on and on if the film gets the appreciation I believe it will merit. The books and Swedish films have certainly been recognized. December 21st, people! Mark your calendars because it is coming. HMS is about to get real.
Please enjoy the trailers below:
(I couldn’t find this last video on YouTube, but click on the link and you won’t regret it!)

I recently had the opportunity to visit my favorite place in the world (kind of) – New York City – on a whim. The reason NYC is “kind of” my favorite place in the world is because my world travels are very limited, but out of my extensive travels of the east coast of the wonderful United States of America, New York is easily my favorite. The city is just so wonderful; it sincerely baffles me when people say they could never live there (common response) or they don’t like the city at all (rare, but not unheard of).

To me the city is this big island of life, and who doesn’t love life? It is the best place ever, especially if you have money to blow. If not, it’s still awesome. There is never a shortage of activities and just walking around is a rewarding experience in and of itself.

So, the reason I was in the city spans back to my Harry Potter obsession. I entered a Facebook contest to win a ticket to see the Broadway musical How to Succeed in Business Without Really Trying starring Daniel Radcliffe.

How to Succeed in Business without Really Trying

Needless to say, I won a ticket to the Tuesday night performance (the night before my birthday, I might add), which brings us to my reason for my impromptu trip. Wednesday before my plane left to bring me back to South Carolina (I love SC, but it could never be to me what NY is), my mother and I decided to walk over 40 blocks to THE Metropolitan Museum of Art. On our last trip together (I came up another time, of course) we visited the American Museum of Natural History. It was fun, but I definitely consider myself more of an art person, at least when it comes to museums. 

We explored the museum for around four hours – that place is massive, the exterior of the building does not accurately express the interior’s capacity. There are ten wings not including the gift shop (I use that term very loosely as the shop is bigger than most Targets) or restaurant. Out of those ten wings, my mother and I whizzed through four of them intentionally and the other six out of sheer confusion.

As we were browsing through everything history has to offer, I had a couple of revelations.

  1. These pieces (particularly those of the Greek & Roman Arts wing) are old. Older than I can imagine. Thousands of years old. Old. And looking good for their age, if I may be so bold.
  2. A lot of these old pieces do not look very different from design today.

First, there is a celebrity appearance by the alien dog from The Neverending Story on some Egyptian relics.

Look closely (my zoom is not very good with phone pictures)

Clearly, these people had skill. And one can safely assume Wolfgang Peterson had an interest in ancient Egyptian art on display at the MMA.

Next, I’d like to show some historic jewelry from Africa.

African Jewelry/Art

If someone wanted to sell these, I’m pretty sure the average art collector would have some stiff competition from stylists and fashionistas.

I could go through all my pictures and say, “Look at this old junk! Doesn’t it look like the same stuff we make today?” But I think this is the point. In my classes this semester, several of the texts we’ve studied have inadvertently shown me that originality isn’t something that’s never been done before. That statement is itself a fallacy and its implications an urban legend. I tend to relate to Plato with his theory of archetypes outside of space and time for several reasons, the most obvious one being I’ve never seen otherwise.

This unintentional theme of originality that’s permeated my blogs thus far has confirmed what I already believe. The goal in making something “original” is not to make something new, but make it your own. Fashion designers, filmmakers, architects, painters and all artists alike will likely tell you the same.  To be truly groundbreaking you must first acknowledge the “ground” your “breaking” is not your creation – you’re building off of someone else’s work.

Finally, and this is my favorite, if you do not see the similarities between this ancient Greek bust and a certain film representation of a literature character, you are voluntarily deluded.

Get it? NO? Well then….

Since I created this blog as an online journal for one of my classes this semester, I’m going to use this post to talk a little bit about the final video project. The requirements of the group project are

  1. We must work in groups four
  2. The video must be no longer than 15 minutes, no shorter than 10
  3. The video must use original footage (it can’t be a montage)

The third requirement really limits the scope and makes the project a little more challenging. Let  me frame it this way: I was unable to make a documentary chronicling Lady Gaga’s fashion evolution (revolution, if you prefer) because there is no possible way I could capture original footage of Lady Gaga.

With my first idea dashed, it was time to get serious. I found my group and submitted some ideas to them, one of which was to re-create the opening scene of a book, and the specific book I suggested was the F. Scott Fitzgeral classic, The Great Gatsby. Who doesn’t love the novel short in length, extensive in symbolism and required in tenth grade honors English classes everywhere? Please, keep your answers to yourself because that was one of the few books I enjoyed reading in any of my English classes, college included, and it has very little to do with the Leonardo DiCaprio adaptation coming in 2012.

Some of the other ideas that were tossed around included a documentary of “A Day in the Life of…” with possible people including celebrities, slobs and divas; and a Quality Value & Convenience/Home Shopping Network segment selling a fictional product no one needs or cares about. Needless to say, The Great Gatsby premise was my favorite option. The team reached a comprimise, meaning I changed my idea a little to please one member of the group. We decided to focus on a particular character of the story and make a condensed E! True Hollywood Story.

Here is a concise summary of The Great Gatsby. If you are anything like me, you remember the enjoyment of being submerged in Nick Carraway’s world, the sadness at Gatby’s death, and little else. Nick Carraway is the narrator who moves in to the West Egg of New York, the suburbs of the newly wealthy. His cousin, Daisy, lives in the East Egg (the suburbs of the always wealthy) with her husband and Nick’s former classmate, Tom Buchanan.

Nick spends much time with the unhappy, physically and emotionally abusive Buchanan couple and learns much about the ugly side of “happiness.” He learns Tom has a lover, Myrtle Wilson, a married resident of the Valley of Ashes; Gatsby, his eccentric neighbor, was and is still in love with Daisy; and the American Dream is much more about lies and cover-ups than dignity. Through an abnormal series of events Gatsby is killed and Nick leaves the West Egg disgusted by life.

The E! True Hollywood Story of Tom Buchanan would focus briefly on Tom’s childhood and focus heavily on life after Gatsby’s death. There will be interviews with Tom, Daisy, Myrtle (before her death) and Nicki (in this version of events Nicki Carraway was and is a female). It isn’t the most original idea, but everyone loves good gossip and Tom, though fictional, provides a hefty helping of it.

Just for some visual fun, here is a look at the actors who have portrayed Tom through the ages:

Top to bottom: Bruce Dern in the Robert Redford film version; Paul Rudd as Nick Carraway & Martin Donovan as the alcoholic Tom Buchanan in the A&E TV version; Joel Edgerton as Tom & Tobey Maguire as Nick in the soon-to-be-released Baz Luhrman remake.

Just for some visual fun, here is a look at the actors who have portrayed Tom through the ages:

Due to casting limitations, Nick had to be performed by a woman, but it will not compromise the integrity of the story any more than turning it into an E! news spectacular. Some lines of respect have already been crossed, but all is fair in the land of grades and grade point average.

We have written the scripts and have scheduled a filming time, but we still have to find a location, film, edit and record the narration. It’s a lot, but it’s only the middle of November. Fall hasn’t even hit yet.

P.S. If you would like to work as an unpaid actress, let me know. The less time I have to spend in front of the camera, the better off our project will be.

P.P.S. If you want to see the latest video project I completed with my partner and/or love Leonardo DiCaprio and/or Inception, check out this link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fW7ECB_xy4Q .

We can all agree most people consider originality to be a good thing. And, for the most part, the general public considers unoriginality to be unworthy of comment. It’s the lukewarm of originality, the middle on the originality scale. Copying others, however, is being seen less and less as flattery and more like infringement.

This resembles the concept of remediation, in that both are based off of something that has already been done. The concept of virtual reality is based on reality. I am aware that was both an obvious and simplistic statement, but it needed to be made. I believe is credit is given where due, a re-creation of someone else’s creation can be great and different. To illustrate what I mean, I am going to use a recently released music video.

“Countdown” by Beyonce:

The song itself counts down (get it? Yeah, me either) the things she loves and/or does with her “boo” (her words). The visual that is the music video goes through the decades with Beyonce dressed as Audrey Hepburn from Funny Face (see my older blog post from September “There and Back Again (and Again)”), classic Vogue photo shoots, Brigitte Bardot, Michael Jackson, Jennifer Beal in Flash Dance (arguable), German experimental dance and the always classy West Side Story.

Beyonce received much criticism with how heavily she borrowed from the aforementioned German experimental dance “Rosas danst Rosas,” choreographed by Anne Teresa de Keersmaeker. This 30-second clip shows the most obvious resemblances to the extensive, much longer dance.

I, however, do not believe this is fair putting my bias toward Beyonce aside. What is an original work if not to inspire originality in others? Some people simply struggle with expressing themselves in imaginative ways, so they copy others. It is still expression, and Beyonce is not trying to steal credit for De Keersmaeker, but rather call positive attention to her work that is probably not known outside of the dance world for several reasons including the inception of the dance (circa 1980).

“Countdown” received no such criticism from its heavy reliance on the epic Funny Face reference. Why? Because it was epic. Nor was she attacked for her throwback to Diana Ross, Twiggy, or her 60s-inspired makeup. It is clear from the video she is not trying to take credit for other people’s work, if only because she referenced so many of them. And when approached about her “stealing,” she admitted to “borrowing” the dances and looks from icons. It was her intention. No one caught her in the act because she was not hiding anything she was embracing it.

It is important to address copyrights and plagiarism is an era where so much is readily available and artists (for lack of a better word) are exploited by people with more power and pull, but it is equally important to remember this is not always the case. I’m pretty sure no one accused the team working on “virtual reality” of not being original enough or stealing ideas from actual reality. These scientists were upfront about digitally recreating reality. [Disclaimer: I am in no way equating Beyonce’s music video to virtual reality in importance, they both serve good examples for my argument.]

The content in this post relates closely to “There and Back Again (And Again)” because it is a pressing issue. When does flattery turn to plagiarism? If this could be clearly defined, then there would be no need for such arguments because people would know when their work would be considered plagiarism and either avoid or embrace it.

This blog is unoriginal. The topics I write on have already been addressed and heavily discussed. And much like a research paper, that is the intention: to think about things even if I am not the first person to do so. It’s quite a twisted logic, the idea of originality, and this is why it causes so much controversy in all areas, not just four-minute music videos. The issue is prevalent in politics, film, music, poetry, literature, etc.

Enough of this ranting. Let me leave you, my lovely reader(s), with some pictures of the people Beyonce chose to honor in “Countdown.”

In the book Remediation by Jay David Bolter and Richard Grusin, remediation is the idea that nothing or original, and, in fact, all new media is only a repurposing of an older media. It is “both what is ‘unique to digital worlds’ and what denies the possibility of that uniqueness” (50). Within this theory there are two logics: the logic of transparent immediacy and hypermediacy. Transparent immediacy longs to rid the “viewer” of the medium, while hypermediacy acknowledges the mediums and representations in use “with window open on to other representations or other media” (34).

I want to loosely focus on the theory of remediation today in Hollywood, by which I mean film and television. Remediation relies on repurposing an older representation into something new, fresh and fun – which is exactly the purpose of film and television studios, at least at the current moment. In my post last week, I mentioned older moments in pop culture – such as Charlie’s Angels, Audrey Hepburn and The Great Gatsby – were being repurposed into modern television, film and fashion. The main idea with that post, however, was that these ideas were popular 15-40 years ago and are just as popular when reintroduced to contemporary society. In the following examples, every “remediation” (or perhaps “repurposing” is more accurate) happens within ten years, if not five, of each other.

Here you see two posters for films that are separated by minor plot differences and three years. The heart Anna Faris sits on for What’s Your Number is cleverly a shape filled in with numbers, which is clearly significant to the film. Katherine Heigl’s dress in 27 Dresses is made to look like she is wearing the technical information about the film. In both posters, there is one color among the black and white that stands out in both the title and on the only animate object within the poster. In Number, the word “number,” names of first-billed cast members and Faris’ dress are in red. In Dresses, only the title and Heigl’s hairpiece are pink. I don’t think it’s a stretch to say that while these movies are different, their marketing campaigns are similar, and they’re meant to be this way. Both films want to draw the same crowds. Since Dresses’ campaign went so well (it topped the box office), why not use the same campaign for a new, repurposed romantic comedy?

Speaking of romantic comedies, here we have two films that were entirely too similar and released entirely too close together for both to be successful. Granted there are some [intentional] differences, such as in No Strings Attached’s poster, the woman is to the left and the man to the right and the backdrops between the two, but that was not enough for this summer’s movie crowd. Please excuse me while I digress. Both actresses – Natalie Portman and Mila Kunis – were fresh off awards season when these movies were released. Portman had been nominated for “Best Actress” in several circles for Black Swan and Kunis had been nominated for “Best Supporting Actress” in most of the same circles for the same film. Kutcher, who plays Portman’s love interest in No Strings Attached, was Kunis’ character’s (Jackie Burkhart) longtime boyfriend in the still popular That 70’s Show. Finally, No Strings Attached and Friends With Benefits both wanted to title their films “Friends With Benefits,” but Strings ultimately had to change their title, which is ironic since No Strings Attached is also the name of *Nsync’s wildly popular album from 2000 because Justin Timberlake (Kunis’ love interest in Friends) was made famous fronting the aforementioned boyband. Talk about repurposing.

The trend here is couples with weapons on white backgrounds with a difference of five years between them. If you are familiar with the films, you realize the plots are significantly different. The attention I want to draw is between the ways films (particularly romantic comedies) are marketed.

Below you will find a couple of romantic comedy posters of films released within the last five years. White backdrops are preferred, there is typically some sort of physical separation between the man and the woman (i.e. random black bar, title, space, etc.), colors outside of black and white are kept to a minimum, and Katherine Heigl and Ashton Kutcher are repeat offenders.

Each of these films follows the logic of hypermediacy when they place the actors names on the poster. They no longer try to draw you in as an active audience member (transparent immediacy), but rather with their big name stars. When films choose to advertise without dropping celeb names, it makes a bigger, more serious statement.

Last but not least, I give you hypermediacy at its finest.

In case you’re confused, here’s the trailer they parodied.

Everything old is new again. At least that’s what they say, and rightly so. One man’s junk (or dirt or rubbish) is another man’s treasure. According to David Crow, “dirt” is whatever society rejects in its societal classifications, it emcompasses the elements considered “out of place.” There cannot be a system without dirt. After all, if everything is accepted, then there are no rules and, therefore, order. There is only disorder – non-system – which one could argue is a system and order in itself.

These “classifications” exist across regional, cultural, communal and professional planes. I am going to show some examples of “rubbish” (economic and social value decreases over time) from an American, pop-culture standpoint. First, please observe a rubbish-recyclable forty years in the making. I give you Charlie’s Angels.

The original television crime drama aired in 1976 and ran for five full seasons, not uncommon. The middle “angel”, Miss Farrah Fawcett was the breakout star of the series and has cemented her place in pop culture history. In 1981, the Angels (with an entirely different set of angels) officially became the rubbish of the seventies. The show became less relevant as time went on, until twenty-four years later, when this gem of a movie appeared.

The film-version of Charlie’s Angels. These girls also benefitted from the Angels fame machine, with Cameron Diaz becoming the breakout star. (This has, no doubt, everything to do with Diaz’s placement in the middle of all shots and pictures associated with the film, much as Fawcett was.) This film was so successful that they made a sequel, Charlie’s Angels: Full Throttle in 2003. The sequel was so much more successful that ABC turned it into a television series that premiered less than one week ago.

Hello, [new] angels. I wonder if this series will be allowed to become rubbish before being brought back into the limelight and asserted value again. Please notice, there are always at least two Caucasian angels (one blonde and one brunette), but in the revamps of this century, the producers have brought in new ethnicities: Asian and African American. It seems one way to turn rubbish into cultural relevance is to become more politically correct?

Moving on to classic literature. Just how many times can you turn a novel into a film? No, I’m not referring to Wuthering Heights or any Jane Austen novel. I am referring to the party novel of its time, The Great Gatsby by F. Scott Fitzgerald.

The first film was released in 1974, forty-nine years after Gatsby’s original publication. After a few years, English teachers grew tired of showing the same old seventies movie to their classes each year and the original film became rubbish. Who would provide a solution to this dull dilemma? The new millennium!

This made-for-TV film circa 2000, was really made-for-English-teachers. This can only be considered a remake in the barest terms. The producers weren’t trying to reboot the popularity of Fitzgerald’s classic, just update it a bit. The newest version of The Great Gatsby to be glamourized is still in production with an all-star cast, huge budget, and highly inventive director, Baz Luhrman. The poster is not yet available and neither is a release date (sometime in 2012), but thanks to the craziness that is Hollywood, some photos have been leaked.

Only time will tell the results of this film, but it seems a safe bet this is a true recreation of the 1974 film, though you can never be sure with Luhrman.

With the popularity surrounding this newest addition to the Gatsby clan, fashion showed its recreation of the Jazz Age as well. At the latest New York Fashion Week, Ralph Lauren unveiled his spring collection, which was clearly Gatsby-themed.

While most runways were debuting bold colors and ladylike silhouettes inspired by the newly minted Duchess of Cambridge, good old Ralph was taking his cues from Hollywood.

On the subject of fashion, this behavior of copying Hollywood is typical. The films or celebrities inspire the designers, who send their inspirations down the runway, which, in turn, end up on the celebrities who inspire and are inspired by them. It’s quite a lovely, fashionable cycle.

With this I turn to style icon Audrey Hepburn. Any photo of her directly represents her rise to fame and the longlasting affect she has had on American culture, film and fashion. While I highly doubt anyone would refer to Hepburn as “rubbish” (or Fitzgerald for that matter, Charlie’s Angels…), it is true her economic and social value is steadily declining. Every now and then, however, corporations will use her as a bargaining chip with their consumers. I present you the Gap commercial of 2006.

Here is the video:

Here is a display window of Gap during the advertisement’s run.

There you have it. Everything old is new again. What’s in one day is out the next and back next week. Where has originality gone? That’s simple: into the recreation.